Ms Ashtiani

Gunnar Hökmark: "Domen är ett uttryck för en medeltida brutalitet som ingen borde stå likgiltig inför. Det faktum att vänsterpartiets ledare inte kan säga om han föredrar demokratin Israel jämfört med denna regim som uppsåtligt dödar en kvinna för att hon är kvinna kastar en skam inte bara över honom utan också över dem som vill att han ska vara med om att utforma svensk utrikespolitik."

I also find almost incomprehensible that Lars Ohly has a problem of selecting the better of Israel and Iran. The fate of Ms Ashtiani is of course potentiated by the Biblical story of how Jesus prevented the stoning of an adulterous woman by saying that the one that is without sin should throw the first stone. We are watching the Christian ethic against the Muslim ditto.

Back then, and still in the Ten Commandments, it was a great sin to be adulterous. In the Western world this is now quite common and moral progress does not make it a crime even any longer. It should be noted, however, that in many corners of the Western society adultery is still considered a very serious sin. I for one don't think it is a good practice but I don't think it should be a criminal offense.

A great admirer of the American society I would love to see that all states prohibit capital punishment. Thirty six states so far do this so they have a way to go. The argument for capital punishment is apparently that it acts as a deterrent that saves lives, which I wonder if it is true? On the negative side is that life time prison could be considered a worse punishment than death and that it is much more expensive due to legal fees to condemn a person to death. Being able to reverse a conviction if it has been made wrongly is a great positive. However, stoning a person to death is of course completely atrocious.

I really don't know what to do with Iran. Obviously they do not need nuclear weapons to continue dwelling in the Middle East. They know it worries their neighbors so they just want to be a pain in the neck. The axis-of-evil triade was real. They shoot and beat their citizens demonstrating on the streets and are ashamed of this since they block media from seeing it. The Ahmadinejad government has probably built up an interior tension in the country that would necessitate a bloody correction as the only possible defusion possibility like what we saw in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. No one is ready for one more of those since it theoretically should not be necessary with Iraq serving as a democracy inspired focus.

Who is most aggressive: the US or an average of 10 Muslim countries?

In my last post I found out the 7% of so called Muslim radicals thought it was perfectly OK to bomb the World Trade Center in New York in 2001. It is possible to compare this with the present sentiments in the US nationwide on bombing nuclear installments in Iran.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked 900 registered voters nation wide on April 2010 the question:

"Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons".

65% supported this idea and 25% opposed it with about the same numbers in a poll from September 2009.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll asked 522 adults nation wide on February 2010 the question:

"What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action now, or take no action against Iran at this time?"

23% wanted military action now up from 13% in 2006. Economic and diplomatic actions were thought in 63% of the cases with the same number 2006. No action was answered in 12% of the case which is down from 21% in 2006.

With this simple analysis the US is more aggressive, assuming the same loss of Iranian lives as in New York. Now there is the difference that the US does not do terrorism or deal in proxy warfare with Israel. Media is thus creating a situation where a preparedness for war against Iran is maintained for the sake of world peace. This is happening despite the fact that analysts and Robert Gates of the Defense Department says it is impossible to attack Iran. We are thus performing psychological warfare against Iran to maintain our interests in the Gulf.

The scenario is complicated by the situation Israel is facing. The Israelis seemed in the last analysis have a zero tolerance for Iranian nuclear weapons. The question then is if Iran is trying to lure the West into a trap where there are no real nuclear weapons but rather only the nuclear energy facilties they claim they have? The same trap Saddam Hussein used. Then again, most analyses indicate that it is not possible to attack Iran so there should not be a problem actually. George Bush did not do it, nor will President Obama.

In other words, an aggressivity of 7% in Muslim countries against the US is probably what one has to expect and can not be a reason for assuming a threat to world peace. We are left with a terrorism threat.

Obama is definitely Christian but 18% of Americans think he is Muslim

The number of Americans that think Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim is up 8% to 18% even before the main Ground Zero Mosque discussion in the press. Actually, Muslims in the world increasingly turn their back on Obama as this rise in belief happens in the US. He went out strongly with his speeches to Muslims in Turkey and Egypt but it did not help. This outstreched hand that failed perhaps has had an influence on the perception of him as a Muslim. In my mind it was just diplomacy that I did not understand.

Obama's job approval continues its slow descent as almost a fifth of the Nation thinks he is a Muslim which could be part of the problem. What is also happening is that Obamas pledge of bringing home the troops from Iraq is going on schedule. There is now only 50,000 of training personnel left of 140,000 total in March 2009. The last "combat" troops just left. Interestingly, this is happening just as the Iraqis have problems assembling a functioning government after the elections in March while the Iranians are knocking on the door via its shiite connections.

I belong to those believing that it was right to enter Iraq in 2003 and I therefore think the soldiers effort has been worthwhile. Saddam Hussein would have caused more problems in the region left alone than there is right now. After all, it was Saddam Hussein that attacked Iran causing a million casualties as well as Kuwait. It was Saddam Hussein that flouted 17 UN resolutions. The question is, however, if bringing home the troops under these circumstances leaving Israel potentially alone in the area with Iran as the dominating force could be part of the reason for the increased number that think Obama is a Muslim?

George Friedman, at Stratfor, points out that the government of Iraq is not friendly to the US at the same time as he asks the question if the US now leaves Iraq to Tehran. What I find most interesting with his analysis is that both Iran and the US then have no interest in a too viable Iraq. You get instead the need for keeping a delicate balance. For example, Iraq could turn against Iran again as well as against Israel. If the US in this fashion, as the troops in Iraq are supposed to leave by a bilateral deal in December 2011, has to give up the area this could give Obama an air of softness to Iran that plays into the Obama a Muslim belief problem.

It is also clear from the article in Washington Post cited above that it is mostly the Republicans that think Obama is a Muslim, not the Democrats. This would mean that since "Muslim" would have a negative connotation that we are dealing with a Midterm Election matter.

Obama and the Middle East?

I think it was in the second of three televised presidential candidate debates where Barack Obama said he wanted to make the US independent of Middle East oil in ten years. The same kind of statement that JFK made about flying to the moon.

He would probably want that more today than then, up to his knees in Gulf of Mexico oil as he is. But what are his chances? Can he replace the oil he needs from other sources by then? Can he step out of Iraq without problems? If the oil spill is a reverse Harrisburg, building nuclear power plants takes a lot of time?

50,000 soldiers are leaving Iraq at the end of the summer and the political vacuum is, according to Stratfor via the Swedish radio program "Konflikt", supposed to be filled by Turkey. Turkey is popular right now but in an anti-Satan kind of way, although Obama is trying to be friendly with the Palestinians. This might mean that Iraq becomes more distanced from the US than today? Which is OK, perhaps, if the US is on the way out as Obama suggested.

There is, of course, a risk that Iran decides to take up that political vacuum instead. Will Israel strike their nuclear facilities then? They have gotten a green light to fly over Saudi Arabia according to timesonline.co.uk. Israel would face a retaliation from this kind of attack according to The Jerusalem Post. In other words, this could get complicated. No one that buys petroleum products from the Middle East would like that to happen, so I hope Israel stays put.

Complicated or not, it would be nice if the US could end their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and lower their need of oil during the upcoming 8 years. As usual, much depends on the intentions of Iran if the region will stay calm. Iran is of course not a role model for the area's peaceful development. Paradoxically to some, Israel would, but Turkey may suffice.

Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel strategy

Propaganda war latest: Tehran 3 Israel 0 Amir Taheri - Times Online: "This message is pumped out through Iranian satellite television stations, such as the Arab language al-Alam News Network. Tehran also publishes scores of magazines and books that are freely distributed throughout the Muslim world. Muslim opinion-formers are regularly invited to Iran for seminars on the pan-Islamic campaign to accelerate “the inevitable end of Israel”, a phrase repeatedly used by Iran’s official media. Mr Ahmadinejad has visited more than two dozen Muslim countries to propagate this new anti-Israel strategy."

If George Friedman at Stratfor sets Israel in a more peaceful environment, if not for Hamas, Iran's proxy, Amir Taheri brings to the fore the propaganda war of a more and more assertive Iran that seems indifferent to the sanctions just enacted by the UN.

Friedman made room for problems in the future for Israel, the state, Ahmadinejad is apparently not out to destroy the Jews. Only the Zionist state Israel. The good news is perhaps that it does not seem like he is going to do this with an atom bomb but rather by means of propaganda wise make it impossible for Israel to function in the area. Unless he is mad enough to think that he can enrage Muslims to the degree that he gets away with a bomb?

Lexington at The Economist gave a reference to what he called a "truly alarmist" article by Joshua Teitelbaum in The Guardian. He means that Turkey is actively plotting to shift to a jihad towards Israel in line with Iran's strategy. The EUobserver.com is today saying that Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, blames EU for not letting Turkey in and thus causing them to go Muslim. EU does not agree and Turkey is saying that they want a no trouble with anyone neighbor foreign policy.

I don't know what it is but I have problems understanding why an area destined to progress into the future is not keen on taking advantage of Israel's prowess. Obama made his first trip to a Muslim country to Turkey and thus showed that he valued their friendship. His administration is now trying to restore the relationship between Turkey and Israel to make their policy work. But Obama's pro-Muslim quest has other troubles. He has cancelled Indonesia for the second time and he arranged the sanction deal against Turkey friend Iran, Turkey and Brazil voting no, and Lebanon abstaining probably because of Hizbollah's wish. What Taheri says is perhaps that Iran has global aspirations, Israel is just the first step.

Like other foreign policy hawks in the US, Teitelbaum says that Obama's new policy is giving space for other actors like Erdogan and Ahmadinejad. The row after the flotilla raid was much larger than warranted and it is therefore easy to state that it is probably used as a propaganda stunt. The organizers managed to raise the temperature higher than after operation Cast Lead and the carrying theme was the same--excessive violence by Israel. As these things go, it might be a justification for what the Iranians officially claims "the inevitable end to Israel". An Iranian flotilla is apparently in the making!?

Iran's Bomb?

The following citation is taken from an article describing the "Special Relationship" between the US and Britain:

"Concerning Iraq, the President and Prime Minister discussed the pro’s and con’s at length – and more intimately than among any other two world leaders. There was ample opportunity for the UK to influence US thinking – and it did so. The fact is that then-Prime Minister Blair made his own decision: It was too risky to allow Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction (which even France and Germany believed they had), and then possibly pass them to terrorists.
This was not only the Prime Minister’s view, it was confirmed through a vote of Parliament. The special relationship did not make Britain do anything. Rather, it gave Britain unique information and access, and Britain – Government and Parliament alike – chose to go forward. And as former Prime Minister Blair candidly and courageously told the Iraq Inquiry, he would do it again."

Well, with Iran we are there again. The difference is that the US military is exhaused according to an article on DN.se. I'm not sure I agree but it would be interesting to know if it is economically too risky to enter into a fight with Iran about their bomb making. In this case we have a situation that would not be acceptable that we cannot do anything about. Does this financial debacle that we have entered put us in a situation of great risk for WMD proliferation? Is this the major problem today?

Iran Sanctions' Status

Editorial - Iran, Sanctions and Mr. Gates’s Memo - NYTimes.com: "There, the news is not good. While Russian and Chinese leaders told Mr. Obama that they will work seriously on new sanctions, diplomats say their representatives are already seeking ways to dilute any resolution. Brazil and Turkey, which currently sit on the Security Council and have a lot of international sway, also are resisting."

If you look back a while, there is a picture emerging of an endless discussion of talks, sanctions and bombs when it comes to Iran. The point were Iran would have a nuclear weapon capability is pushed forward all the time--in absurdum. Apparently the distinction between a nuclear capable Iran and the one today cannot even be discussed in the open. However, the window of opportunity is slowly closing now when Brazil and Turkey are against sanctions as well. Many would agree that something has to be done and it seems evident that Europe has to make up its mind if it wants to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or if it still is in NATO? The problems in Afghanistan are linked to those in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Iran is the key.

The waves in Europe have recently been geared at giving the view that the world has become a true multipolar entity. It seems to fit Europe to want to disappear from view among themselves and to express an intense urge to be left alone in peace. In the mean time, countries like Russia is meddling in the world as detailed in an article by Bronwen Maddox at the Times. Security arrangements with Russia ought to be out of question as suggested in an article by Ben Knight in Deutsche Welle.

I think I wrote something yesterday but I can't resist writing a little today about what I think is very important, that Europe realizes that the US is the only friend they have. The Russia friendliness as of late in Europe seems to disregard totally the mental power fight surrounding the Iran case between the two power blocks that were detailed by Robert Kagan in the presidential election debate of 2008. It is a serious breach of confidence with the US, who seem to want to work along the line of striking deals with Russia and China on security issues which are not possible if they are not of the token quality recently seen in removing nuclear missiles.

An article in Washington Post yesterday claimed it was time to pack up and leave Afghanistan, and to give up American influence in the World altogether, but that probably also means that you loose the other Middle Eastern fights to a resurgent Iran. Fareed Zakaria who wrote the book The Post-American World still think the fight in Afghanistan is worth its while and he also think people should go more easy on Hamid Karzai for its facilitation. He also suggested that this was in part for the sake of India which he hails from. Trans-Atlantic influence in the world remains very important.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a new Cold War. Between countries that don't know how to behave and those who do. Between countries that have decent governments with low corruption and those who don't. Between democracy and authoritarianism. Again, the key is Iran and we eagerly await the destabilization of its suppressive rule.

The Afghanistan problem

Nej till kriget Ledare Aftonbladet: "Sammanblandningen mellan USA:s krig mot terrorismen och FN:s Isaf-styrka, som ska bidra med säkerhet och utbilda afghansk polis och militär och möjliggöra humanitära insatser, är djupt problematisk. Att FN-styrkan dessutom leds av Nato och av en amerikansk general gör inte saken bättre."

Aftonbladet, the newspaper that accused Israel of killing Palestinians and stealing their organs, claims that there is a problem because civilian mores are mixed up with America's war against terrorism in Afghanistan. However, we are not just fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan we are also fighting Iran. Like the US was doing and are doing in Iraq. Iran has chosen to wage a clandestine war against all West's interests in the region. They support Hamas and Hizbollah. They have infiltrated Iraq and they train, lodge and equip fighters that aid the Taliban. Even if they have not formally attacked another country they are expansive and thusly want to propagate their revolution.

Much of the fighting morale for the Taliban is probably coming from the knowledge that Iran supports them. Michael Rubin a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and lectures at the Naval Postgraduate School and at Johns Hopkins University writes and article which elaborates the case for a regime change in Iran. I have earlier thought that the only way forward was a non-sanction approach on Iran but I have reassessed this position to surgical sanctions engineered for targeting only the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Robert Gates, the American Defence Secretary, recently brought up the problem of how to approach the situation Iran's nuclear program is causing. What is new with Rubin's approach is that he rules out bombing which is thought to only irritate and anger those positive to the West that are the prerequisite for a regime change. It is indeed problematic with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and with their attitude they have caused a terrible situation in the Middle East. It would be very good if a new government in Iran would decide to not develop nuclear weapons.

Afghanistan might be insignificant when it comes to commerce but it is situated in an important area where the interests of the US, Russia and China meet. Kyrgyzstan is apparently starting to feel the pressure as well. It harbors both Russian and American bases and the actions of Russia as of late indicates that Russians what the American base shut. Public relations wise Russia is doing terribly well recently in Europe. President Medvedev's deft flight to Krakow through the Icelandic ashes when European chiefs of state huddled in cars and cessnas certainly impressed. However, when push comes to showe they are probably friends of the Islamic Republic to whom they sell important air defence systems that protects them against potential Western assaults. As the development of Central Asia proceeds by Russia and China, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan are a way to the sea half ways as India also have taken note of since they have entered into Afghanistan with quite some funds.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, recently exclaimed that he'd join the Taliban if not so and so but at the same time he says he needs funds for his security forces until 2014. As long as Iran keeps up their covert operations, the war in Afghanistan can drag on for quite some time. Sweden should definitely stay and support the US together with other NATO forces and the purchase of American helicopters to support our troops is well seen. It is my belief that Afghans are better off in the West than in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. A stable Afghanistan is also going to have positive effects on security in Pakistan.

The Taliban wants to become "siloviks" in a future Afghanistan?

Taliban’s supreme leader signals willingness to talk peace - Times Online: "Abdul Rashid [a Taliban] said: “We didn’t have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went. We lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government. Now all we’re doing is driving the invader out. We will leave politics to civil society and return to our madrasahs [religious schools]."

In another world I encountered people that said "we have the power in our hands". I said: that's fine but what are you going to do with it? This is how I see the siloviks. They have the power but no charisma and knowledge to inspire and lead the people. They istead rule by threats when their "religious" visions are threatened. It indeed sounds like Ahmadinejad has been talking to them.

Israel a liability for the US! Tough talk or fact based on research?

'Israel saves, doesn’t endanger, US lives': "This argument first surfaced immediately after the Ramat Shlomo issue broke, with a furious Biden quoted by Yediot Aharonot as telling Netanyahu, “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace. Biden's staff later denied that he made that comment, but regardless, that argument had penetrated the US public discussion about Israel.

Then the Foreign Policy magazine web site ran a story a couple of days later saying that the Commander of the US Central Command, Major General David Petraeus, sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year "with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers."

Well, General Petraeus is not the kind of person that you want to argue against. He is the man that turned the tide on the Iraq war. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton that makes him eligible for interpreting intelligence data on top of this. However, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israelian PM, does just that. I guess he lives in the Middle East and has tentacles everywhere. It still seems to me that his judgement that Israel is an asset rather than a liability is reasonable.

Tough talk then... to reach objectives for the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine? Peace negotiations that the top players in Israel does not think have the possibility to materialize in the short run. My problem with this is that a peace deal between Palestine and Israel, as unlikely as it is, is not going to change Iran's belligerence via Hizbollah and Hamas. According to Petraeus Iran is helping al Qaida now in Afghanistan as well. Ariel Sharon gave Gaza to the Palestinians and they turned it into a war zone...with the help of Iran. This is therefore the likely outcome of further land concessions. Iran blocks effectively peace.

I can't resist making a comment comparing the fight about Afghanistan that apparently is worth NATO lives and that Israel's existence would not be subject to the same treatment. It seems to me that Israel as an asset far supersedes that of Afghanistan.

Turkey as a relay between the West and Iran?

The Region: Meanwhile, in the ME...: "The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image and power behind in order to escape... The [American] government has no influence [to stop]... the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties and Iran-Turkey ties – God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.”"

Barry Rubin at The Jerusalem Post uses this citation from Ahmadinejad of Iran to illustrate what he calls the real problem of the Middle East rather than the Israel-Palestine question in general and the Jerusalem development in particular. Israel is apparently split on the relative importance of Iran (right) or Palestine (left). For Sweden this means that if Ahmadinejad is the boss rather than Erdogan of Turkey, we can become party of the wrong side if a strong Turkey, Irak friendliness is cultivated.

However, Turkey is of course a more cultivated society than that of Iran at this point--democratic as it is. It could therefore be argued that, there would be more influence flowing from Turkey to Iran than vice versa. This could be positive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has however given signs of "revolutionary" tendencies by claiming that assimilation of Turks in Europe is a crime against humanity, thus fueling irritation and fear of a development of a Eurabia.

If the hawks in the US are correct, Iran's tendency to regime change is more likely that their giving up nuclear ambitions, such which can give them the impression that they are leading Turkey along. It seems unlikely that a NATO member such as Turkey would get too subservient with Iran though, unless they become less revolutionary, although people claim they have been distancing themselves from Europe recently. The two countries Iran and Turkey have about the same GDP being on rank 17 and 18, respectively in the world with about the same size populations, 66m and 76m, respectively, which makes Iran a little wealthier per capita.

According to General Petraeus, Iran is more and more intent on fighting the US in the area and it is therefore more and more difficult seeing them as possible to integrate in the international community which is the prerequisite for diplomacy to work. They might simply be too wild. As Rubin points out, this is a bad development. Israel has a GDP of $205bn whereas Iran and Turkey each have approximately $850bn.

Turkey thus seems to have become a relay station for a tug of war between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In all probability this is one of the reasons for Sweden and the US to hesitate in calling Turkish history for what it is. As I have said earlier, I think this is wrong. Not heeding what the US Congress and the Swedish Parliament is arguing concerning the recognition of the 1915 genocide is giving in to dark forces and thus helping those in Turkey that obscur history and prevent reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey in the long run.

The recipient of the Nobel Prize in literature (2006) and the German Booksellers Prize (2005), Orhan Pamuk spoke up for the recognition of the genocide. He was apparently saved from prison, after having being charged for non-Turkishness, by the upcoming discussion of EU enlargment. It matters to Turkey what Europeans think, apparently. At least as far back as 2006, when this happened.

The 19% Job Approval US Congress flexes its Human Rights Muscle?

Armenian Genocide Resolution Advances Despite Obama Push - WSJ.com: "The House panel's resolution, approved on a 23-22 vote, faces an uncertain future in Congress. But it nonetheless could damage U.S. relations with Turkey, a vital ally in the Middle East and Central Asia. Within minutes of the vote, Ankara said it was recalling its ambassador from Washington for consultations. Turkey took the same step in 2007, when the committee passed a similar resolution."

President Obama's administration tried to derail this decision, partly because of concerns from the Weapon Industry, and Hilary Clinton warned that it could derange the sensitive negotiations between Turkey and Armenia. The decision means that the US is closing in on the 20 nations so far claiming that Turkey committed a genocide. The NGO? European Parliament also does. The 20 countries are: Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lituania, Lebanon, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City, and Venezuela.

Genocide scholars generally think it was a genocide and it would be interesting to know why Obama hesitates. He claimed genocide during his campaign. Maybe he has to please people to get his Healthcare bill through? The House Committee on Foreign Affairs did the right thing though. There will never be any meaningful discussion with Turkey if such a historic facts is not visible on the table. This is even more important when Turkey is a NATO ally. Procuring help from Turkey with Iran and Afghanistan also benefits from this clarity.

One wonders why Israel and the UK does not use the word "genocide" to describe what happened in 1915. In 2007 Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates wrote an open letter to Congress where they warned for increased risks for US troops in the field if Turkey was antagonized. WSJ.com also writes that there will now be a probable increase of anti-Americanism in Turkey, something that is a problem already. DN.se writes that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish premier, also have written on the official Turkish web site that the incident might damage the American-Turkish relations and jeopardize the negotiations with Armenia.

Breakfast with the Chinese Ambassador to the EU?

Gunnar Hökmark: "En dag som började med ett frukostmöte med den kinesiske ambassadören till EU som menade att Europas fasthållande vid demokratiska värden skapade problem i relationerna och var ett uttryck för bristande förståelse för Kina."

I was turning pages in the UN declaration of human rights yesterday and couldn't help interesting myself of the problem faced by Hökmark this morning. It is of course necessary to have an opinion that is built on strength during such an accusation. So yes, our democratic rights have served us well over the years and that we have many hundred years of successful trade with various nations before People's Republic of China. So much for the past but what about the future? What is our plan compared to that of China?

However, I would have spared the good ambassador these comments and instead answered that we honor tolerance, an old venerable virtue from the 17th century, and we hope that China would not require us to change our ways in order to do business together. But what happens when Geely buys Volvo Cars? Clash of cultures in Göteborg? Is it possible to have China as a player in the West or is just the opposite possible since our ways are more free?

The next question one would have is if showing an understanding of China's situation really is in one's interest. Apparently they operate their country in another way, they stake different claims in the world. They are for example good friends with Iran. Basij kind of guys! Knowledge of their ways is of course valuable but showing interest perhaps not. I actually find it very intriguing that so many want to do business with Russia and China. It must be very profitable but definitely risky. A new type of warfare?

Weapons of the past?

Remarks By Carl Bildt at the Global Zero Summit: "But from my particular European perspective I would urge for an agreement on further limits on strategic arms to be followed by talks aimed at reductions also on sub-strategic nuclear weapons."

The citation is from a thoughtful speech by Carl Bildt from a couple of days ago. Apparently President Obama does not think we will remove nuclear weapons during his lifetime and Bildt adds that this will not happen "tomorrow". I don't think nuclear weapons, by all means, is the last murderous weapon Man will invent. There will be more to come. However, for terrorists nuclear weapons can't be judged a "weapon of the past". They seem instead to be the weapons of tomorrow.

We could not prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't think we will be able to prevent Iran from this either. Bildt argues that when the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 was ratified there were five nuclear states. Now there are at least four more. He adds that we are now at a critical point and I can't agree more. This can be seen in the international press in the discussions around Iran's nuclear program. It is rogue and labile states that now are acquiring nuclear weapons with resources to start producing terrorist grade ones.

With due respect of the initiative from Bildt and Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, I believe that a progressive European perspective on the nuclear issue should be focused on the proliferation aspect. Yes, less tactical weapons might mean less chance of "broken arrows" but Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps clandestine organizations make their own gear.

North Korea and Iran are backed by China, who then does not show what the West mean by responsibility for the security of the world community. Most data speak in the direction of this meaning that we will have to live with "loose canons". It therefore seems like these weapons have to be stopped at the borders and that the discussion would have to be geared in this direction instead. After all we have the Kaliningrad and Kola weapons on our doorstep already.

Extrapolating from Chinese intent, they let North Korea through and armed Pakistan, it seems like they would not mind a Western town going up in smoke with the loss of moral this would entail. The questioning of Tony Blair, the former prime minister of the UK, recently aired the idea that the judgment of risk attached to Muslim fundamentalism allows for the destruction of 30,000 people or so. If Iran acts by proxy via Hamas and Hizbollah, it seems China is doing the same via North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The Muslim radical being their wasser träger.

Europe could then act in solidarity with the US and not sell civilian air craft and weapons to China when China is threatening the US as The Economist suggests. However, the Chinese play tough and say that Europe should sell weapons to them now so that they would be able to buy from China in the future. This is the cross roads we currently are at. Backing the US against China or joining China in potential trade wars. What are our values? Well, there is a great difference between an American Republican and a Swedish Social Democrat. But if there would be anything to the talk of human rights in the West, we are miles away from the average Chinese.

Europe should then somehow sway Iran to their side a move that would block China's proxy fight. It is really important with a peaceful solution for this equation and it is very probable that Europe would win in fair competition with China in Iran. Interestingly, this would mean going China's way on Iran which is what China probably does not want the West to do. They gamble on conflict which suits them better. A friendly Iran means a friendly Turkey and friendly diasporas in Europe. It would make the Middle East more peaceful. Both Russia and China are trying to rule by divide in Europe. China sees itself starting a new Asian dynasty and would not mind a lower grade Eurabia, although I personally don't think there is a risk for this development.

However, due to a low interest by Europeans in the G1+G1 'affairs' and due to a problem of a disunited Europe, the EU should follow the lead of the US, while still acting alone. The problem is that if the elites of Europe realize this the average European is very local in her thinking, at least according to available statistics. Therefore I see a great need for an EU minister in Sweden that can paint up the greater picture for the Swedes in that they will become true Europeans. Without even a pan-European television channel and a common language, this is a very difficult job.

Let the World percolate for a while?

EUobserver / Obama to skip EU-US summit in Madrid: "In a speech held in Paris last Friday, Ms Clinton however rejected the idea that 'the Obama administration is so focused on foreign policy challenges elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded in our list of priorities.'"

It looks like President Obama is not coming to the EU-US meeting in May that apparently is going to be held in Madrid due to the chairmanship of Spain. There has been some confusion as to it being placed in Brussels instead due to van Rompuy and Lady Ashton. Spain left it open, however, since dignitaries often show up at the last moment.

After reading the State of the Union speech I thought that since the treatment of the abroad was treated so summarily that we have now a US with an Interior Minister, Obama, and a Secretary of State, Clinton. The president is gone until the mid-term elections perhaps. Regular wisdom hold that when the President is gone there is not much clout in the Secretary of State.

What this might mean is that Europe might act more independently. Especially in the Middle East. After all, this more our neighborhood. I'm particularly thinking of Iran since Israel is a little more a US question due to the larger diaspora. After all Iran calls the US the "Great Satan" but does not have the same epithet for the EU. I would like to remind the audience of a report issued by ECFR or European Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank, called Towards a post-American Europe: A power audit of US-EU relations.

However, Siemens, the German world leading engineering company, has stated that they would stop signing new contracts in Iran coming mid-2010. This is a a reaction to the seizure of two German diplomats during the Ashura celebration for a tentative role in the uprisings. German exports to Iran had decreased 8% during January to November 2009 while the total German export went down 19% due to the financial crisis. It remains to be seen if Lady Ashton is going to have more luck in the diplomatic dealings with Iran than had Javier Solana.

Based on experience this would have to mean the discussion of something else than their nuclear program. However, it is possible that the P5+1 talks with Iran concerning this topic is being greased with the Taiwan arms sales by the US so as to make it easier for the Chinese to understand how the West feels about the risk involved with Iran? Hillary Clinton would need the Chinese vote in the UN Security Council for stronger sanctions.

What's worse?

Column One: Keeping Zionism's promise: "On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians – not Iran – is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, “The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future.”"

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post writes that there is different opinions about which is worse a bomb from Iran or the World's opinion against Israel due to the Palestinian issue. She also discusses the problems in Malmö of fleeing Jews.

The problem with trying to alleviate the risk of nuclear proliferation in Iran is that bombing Iran will make Barak's worries greater. Israel seems positioned between the rock and the hard place.

The question is then of Kagan's idea of a higher probability for a regime change in Iran than that they stop their nuclear program is to wonder whether a regime change will improve the Palestinian issue by weakening the support to Hamas and Hizbollah? However, a regime change is probably easier talked about than accomplished.

The Iranian issue is otherwise heating up as Tony Blair during his questioning yesterday said that he thinks the risk we face with Iran today is greater than that with Iraq in 2003. His take on this issue must be considered important as he has travelled the Middle East for some years now as a Peace Envoy.

The decision of Blair and Bush was correct

Blair Defends Iraq War Decision - WSJ.com: "'And the decision I had to take was, given [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's] history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program?'" See also New York Times and DN.se.

Britain grilled Tony Blair for 6 hours yesterday where Blair defended his and Bush's decision of invading Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran, he had attacked Kuwait, he shot SCUD missiles on Israel, he had be brutal to the Kurds and he had been a monster to his own people. This man could have caused great harm to a Western nation.

Blair used a particularly important argument which he called the "2010 question". He said today "we would be facing a situation where Iraq would be competing with Iran on nuclear weapons capability and in support of terrorist groups".

Important critique on this type of actions have been put forward however. I'm thinking particularly of Joseph Stiglitz book on the real cost of the war, $3tn. On top of all lives this is an extremely high cost. The other thing we have learned is that coming in taking over and building a democracy that is friendly with the invaders is a very difficult thing to achieve which we have playing out now in Afghanistan. The risk for civil war is very high.

What I don't understand completely is why there are 30% of people saying that we shall bomb Iran now to prevent nuclear armament when there has been such an argumentation against the Iraq invasion. I certainly don't like Ahmadi-nejad but he does not have the same low record as Saddam Hussein. Neither have the Taliban.

Therefore I feel confident of supporting Blair and Bush on their decision.

State Of The Union Address 2010

State Of The Union 2010 (FULL TEXT): Read Obama's Speech: "Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists"

Well, President Obama focused on domestic problems in his State of the Union Address. He mentiones summarily the two wars and that all combat troops are going to leave Iraq by August 2010.

However, as you can see in the excerpt above the greatest danger is nuclear weapons, apparently greater threat than economical, and the possibility that a terrorist might bring a bomb onto American territory. A Nuclear Security Summit is to be held in April as announced in July 8, 2009 at the White House.

One problem is a country like Iran where there is anger and terrorism at the same time as the possible production of nuclear weapons. Such a country, like also Pakistan, could produce small carry-on weapons for terrorist use. Robert Kagan writes an article in Washington Post, How Obama can reverse Iran's dangerous course, that one solution to this problem might be that the probability for regime change now is greater than the probability that the leaderhip in Iran will give up its nuclear program.

How do we fight dictatorships?

Dick Erixon — I hjärtat rebell: "Västvärlden har tystnat.
Så borde det inte få förbli. Vi ska stå upp för mänskliga rättigheter — särskilt i den del av världen där de saknas mest. Och vi borde ta strid med diktaturerna. På alla plan. Inte minst i FN. Det är deras främsta arena, där de hämtar sin legitimitet genom att få agera som jämbördiga med demokratiskt valda ledare."

Carl Bildt is pointing out the importance of the Internet in a recent article in Washington Post. I believe that fighting dictatorships today is to let the information flow. Information imperialism as the Chinese call it. Erixon often state that we should stand up to authoritarian governments and I cannot agree more. The question, however, is how this battle should be fought today.

Take the Iranian regime. They have effectively managed to excite the US to begin threatening their country and this plays in the hands of the regime that want to win their local battle over moderates who try to speak of positives in the West. Treating Iran's regime like a delinquent child that want to test its surrounding is much better than hitting the child as a punishment. Patient versus criminal. The flow of information will than work its way into the fibers of the society.

I don't think this way solves all problems. However, I think the result is much better than with threats given the present circumstances. Bill Clinton had the right attitude went Hugo Chavez orated his diatribes at the UN. He sighed and uttered that Chavez was just destroying it for himself. Such leaders are their own worst enemies if they are treated as immatures rather than as criminals.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Lady Ashton

EUobserver / US welcomes EU's new foreign policy powers: "'These are historic times for the EU. I expect that in decades to come, we will look back on the Lisbon Treaty and the maturation of the EU that it represents as a major milestone in our world's history,' Ms Clinton told press in Washington on Thursday (21 January)."

There was initially some question as to the priority between the high representative of EU and the foreign minister of the rotating chairmanship nation which seems to have come out in favor of Lady Ashton. Continuity, a budget and 5,000 employees should in all probability trump a nation's foreign service, especially if it is not a question of the major EU powers.

Clinton and Ashton have both come down on Iran with a quest for sanctions but Iran was saved by China in the UN Security Council. China advocated "patience". It should be remembered that this is said by the nation that claims it is too early to say if the French revolution was good or bad. If I have understood this correctly, this means that sanctions are not going to work. China likes to have a hot lunatic, North Korea, on Japan and one on the Middle East, not to mention the check on India via Pakistan, who they helped getting nuclear weapons.

Why do I also advocate no sanctions on Iran? Well, my thinking differs from that of China in that I believe Iran is more Western than Asian and that properly encouraged it will begin trading more with Europe. Something that would minimize the risk of their future nuclear weapons. The large Muslim diaspora in Europe would serve as a padding for future relations with the Middle East.

Germany is already the main trading partner with Iran even if this apparently might be because Ahmadi-nejad thinks they will become anti-semitic and help out against Israel. Gerhard Schröder got the question on a recent visit. It is, however, a fact that the EU is so anti-Israel that this might have positive effects on the future interaction with Iran. It is a difficult balance but might be worth a try in solving this Gordian knot.